So "Me and my friends" don't feel charitible enough this year. So they go under funded.
- your suggestion is to steal and to use violence to take from those who have wealth to subsidise those who do not and you do not see a problem with that? You and your friends are not the only game in town, under what scenario have people actually left children to starve? What people are we talking about and in case where there isn't enough food for people that they would leave children to starve, what government could do anything about any of it?
You can't simply wave your hands around and stipulate that from somewhere magical charitible unicorns will show up and provide the needy exactly just enough for what they need. Its ridiculous.
- what is ridiculous is to expect that you can steal your way into prosperity.
It's not unicorns that are charitable, there no unicorns, it's people that are not stolen from. In any case, you are again talking about complete edge cases, cases where a child is born into nothingness apparently, no parents, no siblings, no grandparents, no uncles or ants to take care of them. What are they born somewhere in the woods? Well, no amount of government will help them there. Children that born in hospitals are not thrown out into the dirt, there are actual charitable organisations that make money (yes they make, evil profits) by collecting money for such cases and they can manage their collections much better than any government and in a free market capitalist environment charitable organizations are also competing with each other for dollars, so they have to be transparent and efficient otherwise they may lose to their competition. Governments do not have to be anything, transparency, efficiency, those are against government mode of operation, because it works against the main goal of government: accretion of power. You don't accrue power by reducing itself by finding efficiencies and reducing costs, you accrue power by increasing your army and in case of bureaucrats their staff members are their army and the more of those a government office has, the more powerful it is, the more it can steal from people via taxes and inflation. Governments do not solve problems, it is against their mode of operation, governments increase problems because solving a problem means that there is no more need for that agency or at least not for an agency of that size. In free market capitalist economy a company that no longer provides a marketable product has to change or disappear, government does not do such a thing, it uses its power to make the problem bigger and deeper, not solve it. A solved problem is against government principle of increasing its own power.
Because you never turn anyone down right? You never run into someone you wouldn't hire? If someone shows up willing to work, well you just sign them up and they can start earning so they can eat and pay rent.
- free markets discover prices that allow them to clear. Obviously you don't understand it.
Oh... so you provide them work, but its up to them to what, exactly? Do they need to get a second job that actually pays actual money if they'd like to eat and not live in a ditch while they learn from you? Because presumably if they show up to your place of work dizzy from lack of nourishment and smelling of ditch living you'd probably ask them to leave.
- a person without skills is of 0 use to me.
A person with skills is worth money.
A person without skills has these options: go make some money and go study somewhere and pay for that privilege or go on welfare apparently or find a position that could be used to start their career.
Making money to give it away to a college is dumb unless you are talking about a doctor maybe (even then I would argue you can learn on your own and by working for doctors for free for some time). At least in an apprenticeship position you don't have to pay me to learn the skills and you don't accrue debt to me unlike in a college, where you learn nothing of any use to me anyway and you accrue debt and waste time.
Sure. But you required capital to build that system, and that system is only worth anything if someone else wants it.
- certainly and I saved that capital to build my systems. That's the beauty of free market capitalism, I had to save the capital from previous production and under-consumption or I could borrow it from somebody else who saved it. The good thing about it if I engage in a mode of operation where my work is not paying my bills while draining me of capital I can only lose my own money and you are in no way on a hook for it. You apparently think that this is somehow wrong.
Ah, well then Africa must be wealthy indeed because they have plenty of mud
- houses are built from bricks, maybe you didn't realise it, but mud can be used to make bricks and then those bricks can be used to build houses and to build stoves that then can be used to produce better bricks. It's amazing what a little world education does for a person.
Funny that most writers, painters, and musicians make next to nothing from their art and work other jobs. Seems like the magic of creating wealth by sheer creative will is overrated. I can create all the music I can, but without demand for my vast creative outputs I don't end up any wealthier for it.
- competition is a beautiful thing, isn't it? If you can't write something marketable that's really not anybody's problem, do something else instead.
Maybe you shouldn't be taking the mud bricks and music as a literal advice for your own circumstance, find your own 'mud brick' to make, you may end up actually making something of value, something that somebody may find useful in some way.
But so far all I see from you is absolute closemindedness, you are of an opinion that people are incapable of doing something on their own to satisfy demands/desires of others.
You see, one cannot simply "create wealth". One can create, but its not wealth unless there is actually a market for it.
- one can create wealth, and obviously if the idea is to create for trade you should really concentrate your energy on creating things that others may find useful and trade for it. What a concept, did you just discover trade for yourself?
There is plenty that a person can do in the modern world starting from nothing with nothing, a person can work for others when he has nothing of his own, that's how we all start in life - with no skills and with no assets (most of us) and it takes time and we acquire skills and assets (most of us). Sure, there always will be people who are incapable of being useful to others, those are edge cases and there shouldn't be any policy that is based on edge cases that affects the rest of the people in the society.